Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd vs Dilip Kumar Ghotiya on 17 June, 2020

Author: Mukta Gupta

Bench: Mukta Gupta

$~1
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     CS(COMM) 177/2020
      TATA SONS PVT. LTD.                                   ..... Plaintiff
              Represented by:         Mr.Achuthan Sreekumar and
                                      Mr.Akshay Agarwal, Advocates.

                         versus

      DILIP KUMAR GHOTIYA                               ..... Defendant
               Represented by:        Mr. Suraj Surya, Advocate.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
                         ORDER

% 17.06.2020 The hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing. I.A.4530/2020 (exemption from filing court fee) I.A.4532/2020 (exemption from filing original, clearer copies etc., duly notarised affidavits and suit papers in physical form)

1. Exemption is allowed, subject to the condition that plaintiffs will file the duly sworn/attested/notarised affidavit and the court fee within 72 hours from the date of resumption of the normal functioning of this Court.

2. Applications are disposed of.

I.A.4531/2020 (under Order XI Rule 1(4) Commercial Courts Act)

1. Additional documents, if any, be filed within 30 days.

2. Application is disposed of.

CS(COMM) 177/2020 I.A.4529/2020 (under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC)

1. Plaint be registered as suit.

2. Issue summons in the suit and notice in the application.

3. Learned counsel for the defendant enters appearance on advance copy being served and a link being sent from this Court to the defendant. He accepts summons in the suit and notice in the application.

4. Written statement to the plaint and reply affidavit to the application be filed within 30 days.

5. Replication and rejoinder affidavit be filed within three weeks thereafter.

6. List the suit and the application before Court on 30th July, 2020.

7. By the present suit, the plaintiff seeks a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing its trademark TATA/ , with its variations, passing off its products as that of the plaintiff, dilution and tarnishment of well known trademark TATA/ , damages, rendition of account, delivery up as the defendant is using the deceptively similar mark TATAAR & SONS which has no close affinity to the defendant's company.

8. Plaintiff is a part of group companies called the TATA Companies. Case of the plaintiff is that the TATA Companies own the name and trademark 'TATA' with its variations, which mark has been qualified as a well known trademark. The plaintiff along with its group companies, subsidiaries etc. is operating around 100 major companies and carrying on businesses in the industrial core sector, pioneering textiles, iron and steel, CS(COMM) 177/2020 Page 2 of 5 power, chemicals, hotels and automobile industries in India. Besides these industries keeping in pace with the changing global scenarios TATA Companies have also branched out into computers and computer software, electronics, beverages, telecommunications, financial services, mutual funds, insurance, broadcasting, aerospace and defense, retail etc.

9. The group companies' valuable brands find place in the top 40 brands in the country. TATA Consumer Products Limited (earlier known as Tata Global Beverages Limited) is one of the associate companies of the plaintiff and focuses on providing consumers with affordable and premium quality consumer goods including branded natural beverages such as tea, coffee and water, salt, spices etc. under the key brands such as Tata Tea, Tetley, Tata Salt, Tata Sampann, Tata Coffee Grand.

10. Plaintiff claims that Tata Sampann TCPL brought the traditional wisdom of Indian food in a contemporary package to deliver the best of taste, nutrition and convenience. Thus the plaintiff under the trademark Tata Sampann is selling spices, pulses, Organic Products, Ready-to-Cook mixes, chutneys, etc. Tata Sampann range of spices is crafted to meet not just consumer's taste but their health also and sourced from the most authentic places like chillies from Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, turmeric from Salem, Tamil Nadu and coriander from Kumbhraj, Madhya Pradesh etc. to provide best of flavour and nutrition boosted by the natural oils.

11. Grievance of the plaintiff in the present suit is that on investigation the plaintiff came to know that the defendant which is a proprietorship concern run by one Dilip Kumar Ghotiya trading under the name D2 & Company, located at C-10, Raghu Nath Colony, Galta Gate, Jaipur-302003, Rajasthan had filed an application for registration of the trademark CS(COMM) 177/2020 Page 3 of 5 TATTAR & SONS on 10th January, 2020 in Class-30 which includes tea, coffee, spices etc.

12. The defendant has an official website, that is, www.d2- company.business.site and through the said website, the defendant is advertising and promoting its business of manufacturing and supplying packed spices and spice mixtures. On further search, the plaintiff has also found that the defendant has a page on the social networking site that is facebook.com where the defendant is publicising its products bearing the mark TATTAR & SONS. The defendant is also marketing and selling its products through online trade directory, that is, IndiaMart.com. It is thus evident that though the defendant company is in Rajasthan but is targeting customers in the other States as well including Delhi and this fact was verified by the plaintiff's investigator who placed an order with the defendant company for spices which were duly delivered to the investigator at Delhi.

13. Learned counsel for the defendant who enters appearance on advance notice states that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. As noted above, the defendant has its website and is also advertising its products on the online portal targeting the customers all over the country and that this fact is evident from the purchase made by the plaintiff's investigator who was delivered products at Delhi.

14. Considering the facts stated in the plaint and that the trademark used by the defendant is deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case in its favour and in case no ad-interim injunction is granted, the plaintiff would suffer an irreparable loss. Balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff.

15. Consequently an ad-interim injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, its partners, officers, agents etc. in terms of prayer (i), (ii) and (iii) of paragraph-45 of I.A. No.4529/2020.

16. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

JUNE 17, 2020 'vn' CS(COMM) 177/2020 Page 5 of 5